A Core Europe Without Britain?
The Telegraph reported on September 4:
“British withdrawal from the EU is coming into sharper focus, with all the grave consequences that will ensue for the Atlantic order and the cause of market liberalism. For this we can thank those who recklessly – or mischievously – chose to revive the European Constitution after rejection by the French and Dutch people… Gordon Brown’s plan to slip it through Parliament is becoming untenable in the face of a backbench revolt by Labour MPs, a united Tory opposition, and likely calls for a vote by the Liberal Democrats… It is unlikely that British voters can be cajoled into endorsing this Putsch, once debate is joined…
“Hopes that the French people will rescue us a second time are fading. Mr Sarkozy has a crushing majority in parliament, and is better able to duck a referendum than Mr Brown… Holland remains eerily silent, watching us… British withdrawal – so obviously forced upon us – would [send] tremors through Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, among the oldest democracies in Europe as it happens, and the richest. It would traumatise Ireland, and dismay Finland… Where all this might end is anybody’s guess, but it is a fair assumption that Mr Sarkozy will quickly press for a core-Europe… What we take for granted as the permanent post-War order is more fragile than it looks.”
Vanishing Britain
On August 28, Townhall.com published the following article:
“Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture… Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there, or the thousands unknown to the government…
“Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation…
“Abraham Lincoln said no nation can exist half slave and half free. Neither can a nation be sustained if it allows conditions that result in mass emigration, while importing huge numbers of foreigners who come from backgrounds that do not practice assimilation or tolerance of other beliefs. When one factors in the high number of abortions (one in five pregnancies are aborted in England and Wales), the high birth rates of immigrants (15 times those of white Britons), it doesn’t take a population expert to predict that the days of the England we have known may be numbered.
“The problem for Britain and the United States isn’t just the change in demographics. It is the reluctance of both countries to inculcate the beliefs, history and, yes, religious ideals, which made our nations so successful that others wanted to come and be a part of them. The difference between many of the current immigrants and those of the past is that the previous ones wanted to become fully American or fully British. The current ones, in too many cases, would destroy what makes our countries unique. And the ‘leaders’ of Britain and America refuse to stop it.”
The Most Powerful Woman in the World
The Associated Press reported on August 31:
“Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel tops Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most powerful women for the second year in a row, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice slipped to fourth from second last year. Merkel ‘continued to impress the world with her cool leadership at two back-to-back summits,’ Forbes said.
“The magazine cited her work getting leaders at the Group of Eight summit to agree to goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and persuading European Union leaders to get moving on a treaty to replace their failed constitution. China’s vice premier Wu Yi was No. 2, and Ho Ching of Singapore, chief executive of Temasek Holdings, was third ahead of Rice.
“Several other female heads of state or government made the list, including Britain’s Queen Elizabeth at No. 23, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Helen Clark at No. 38, Finland’s President Tarja Halonen at No. 50 and Philippines president Gloria Arroyo at No. 51. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was No. 25 and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was No. 26, while first lady Laura Bush was 60th.”
Please view our new StandingWatch program, titled, “The Most Powerful Woman.”
Coming–Complete Isolation of the USA?
Der Spiegel Online reported on August 31:
“German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday proposed the idea of basing a nation’s carbon emissions allowance on population size. German commentators on Friday say it’s another step on the path towards isolating the USA. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel may be the most powerful woman in the world according to Forbes magazine, but getting the world to agree on how to combat climate change has so far eluded even her. On Thursday, though, she made yet another proposal aimed at bringing developing nations like China and India on board: carbon dioxide emissions based on population size…
“Center-left paper Süddeutsche Zeitung on Friday writes: ‘Whether global climate protection continues — and whether a new treaty replaces and improves upon the Kyoto Protocol — depends largely on solving the problem of fairness. The greenhouse effect cannot be stopped without large developing nations, just as it cannot be stopped without the USA… It looks as though Merkel wants to continue following her G-8 strategy: that of isolating the US until it comes around. An American releases 20 times as much greenhouse gases as an Indian does — and the consequences are clear: Merkel’s proposal will not be well received. But America’s scepticism could soon result in its complete isolation.'”
The Creation of Human-Animal Embryos
The Guardian wrote on September 2:
“Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government’s fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were ‘at ease’ with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.
“Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs… Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed after 14 days… Opponents of the research and some religious groups say the work blurs the distinction between humans and animals, and creates embryos that are destined to be destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them.”
AFP added on September 5:
“Britain’s fertility regulator decided in principle Wednesday to allow scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos for research purposes. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the go-ahead to controversial plans to create ‘cytoplasmic’ embryos, which merge human cells with eggs from animals such as cattle.”
How deceptive the scientific approach is toward this incredible ethic violation, can be seen from the following statement, quoted in the AFP article: “The resulting embryos are therefore mostly human, with a small animal component.” But at the same time, it is being admitted that “The research involves transferring nuclei containing DNA from human cells to animal eggs that have had nearly all their genetic information removed.” So, however one wants to slice it, HUMAN CELLS are supposed to be transferred to an ANIMAL EGG. No sugarcoated language can deny the fact that what is being “envisioned” here is THE CREATION of a human-animal mixture. The long and the short of it is this: Scientists want to play God–again! HOW LONG is God going to allow such conduct to continue? Let us all pray that it won’t be TOO MUCH LONGER!!!
U.S. Blitzkrieg Against Iran?
WorldNetDaily reported on September 2:
“The Pentagon has formulated a ‘three-day blitz’ plan to annihilate Iran’s military that targets 1,200 sites, including Tehran’s nuclear facilities, in order to render its military incapable of conducting offensive, defensive or retaliatory missions… President Bush increased his rhetoric against Iran’s nuclear program last week, saying Tehran had put the Mideast ‘under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust’ and indicated action would be [taken] against the program ‘before it is too late.’… Revelation of a plan for a three-day blitz to destroy Iran’s fighting ability indicates the administration leans toward the use of rapid, overwhelming force if the military option is used.”
Times-On-Line added on September 2:
“One Washington source said the ‘temperature was rising’ inside the administration… Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary… Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a ‘power vacuum’ in Iraq… Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months…”
Austria’s Right-Wing Parties Unite Against Mosques
On September 1, 2007, “New Europe–The European Weekly,” reported the following:
“On August 27, Austria’s feuding right-wing parties, the Freedom Party and the Alliance for Austria’s Future (BZ), united to fight the construction of mosques in the country. Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache stressed his support for amendments to Austria’s constitution to that effect that were proposed by his arch-nemesis Joerg Haider on the weekend before last. Haider, governor of the province Carinthia and former leader of the BZ, a breakaway party from the Freedom Party, called for a ban on the construction of mosques and minarets, dpa reported. He was against a ‘clash of cultures’ or ‘radical-Islamic tendencies like in Cologne or Vienna’ in his province, Haider was quoted as saying on August 26. Haider called for a countrywide ban in order to protect Austria’s prevailing western culture, it was reported. He also demanded religious groups to be obliged to use German language in services and sermons.
“Going one step further, Strache demanded ‘measures against the Islamisation of Austria,’ including a ban on headscarves in schools, universities and the public service, the deportation of radical preachers and an annual ‘Islamisation report.’ The controversial remarks are expected to trigger another outcry by representatives of Muslim organisations in Austria, who stress the freedom of religion enshrined in the country’s constitution.”
Turkey Refuses to Recognize Assyrian Genocide–Exerts Pressure on Europeans
Eastern Star News Agency reported on August 31:
“Many people are today aware of the genocide the Assyrian people suffered during WWI at the hands of the Turks and… the Kurds. Many also know that this genocide, called Seyfo by Assyrians, is an incredibly controversial issue among Turks, who refuse to this… day to accept any accusations of genocide in spite of the conclusions made by independent scholars who have studied the issue.
“This Turkish-Assyrian issue caused many headlines in the Swedish media in the last two weeks. It started during a speech of the leader of the social democratic party, Mona Sahlin, in Stockholm on… August [12], 2007. When informed that Mona Sahlin was to hold a speech in town, an Assyrian group prepared a leaflet with the message ‘Recognize the genocide against the Assyrians.’ Also present during the speech of the social democratic leader was a Turkish group from the local area. Chaos ensued. The Turkish group started making threats and demanding that the leaflet of the Assyrian group be taken down. Feeling the pressure and the threats of the Turkish group, the social democratic representatives started demanding from the Assyrians to take down the leaflet. The Assyrians took down the leaflet reluctantly.
“The following day the uproar started in the Swedish media. The debate evolved around whether Swedish society should submit to threats made by Turks or other groups who do not respect the freedom of speech. Many influential persons expressed solidarity with the Assyrians and called for the Seyfo genocide to be recognized. The social democratic party was shaken by the event and the harsh criticism against it for not standing up for the freedom of speech. Several newspapers also criticized the party for not officially recognizing the genocide on Assyrians because of Turkish threats and diplomatic pressure.”
Iraq: Britain vs. USA — and Iran Rejoices
On September 4, 2007, Der Spiegel Online reported the following:
“Monday was a day of symbols in Iraq. Just as British forces were making their withdrawal from Basra in the south, US President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Anbar province west of Baghdad… Commentators writing in Germany’s main newspapers Tuesday had little positive to say about either the American or the British strategy.
“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
“‘The majority of Americans lost faith a long time ago that their GIs could use armed force to impose peace in the torn-apart country, especially since Iraq’s overwhelmingly Shiite government does more or less nothing to bring about the drastically needed reconciliation with the Sunnis and the Kurds…’
“The conservative Die Welt, in a piece headlined ‘Brown Versus Bush,’ laments the British decision to withdraw its troops from Basra:
“‘Britain could have waited another 10 days (until Petraeus officially hands over his Iraq report to Bush) before withdrawing to their base at the Basra airport. Instead, Brown chose to follow his own British way in order to boost his own popularity at the cost of trans-Atlantic relations… By acting on his own in Iraq, Gordon Brown re-focused the Iraq debate on withdrawal, when perseverance is actually called for.’
“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
“‘The end of the physical presence of British troops in Shiite Basra has great symbolism, which makes Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s justification for the withdrawal look like nothing more than an embarrassing rhetorical contortion. The withdrawal may have been planned and organized. But it does not look much like a success story, happening as it did during the night while a curfew prevailed. That makes the supposed withdrawal seem more like a retreat, if not an actual DEFEAT.”
“‘Such a verdict would more accurately reflect the situation in southern Iraq, the mood in the United Kingdom and the debate of the past months, which ended up this weekend in a BITTER BRITISH-AMERICAN RECKONING. London has failed, and completely — this is the verdict that Brown now has to hear, from the British opposition and from the ranks of his American ally. The assessment is partially justified, but it is also partially wrong: Washington is certainly more “responsible” for the situation in Iraq than London.’
“The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
“‘Even when the British were right in the center of (Basra), they couldn’t prevent the open struggle between the Shiite militias for control of the oil-rich province. The British have handed over the city to an Iraqi administration and security forces that have long become an instrument of the militia. They are now waiting in the wings to fill the vacuum. With all of these Shiite militias, Iran’s influence is growing in the region. It remains to be seen how big a mistake it was not to include Tehran in the search for a political solution in Iraq…
“‘TEHRAN WILL CERTAINLY BE DELIGHTED TO ACCEPT THE GIFT OF BASRA. But whether the mullahs will become a force for order or chaos in future, depends on the US attitude to Iran. The British diversionary tactics of recent days have been BIZARRE, with the former commander of British forces in Iraq Mike Jackson describing Washington’s Iraq policy as “intellectually bankrupt” — as if Tony Blair were dragged into the Iraq War against his will.'”
Germany Under Terror Attack
BBC News reported on September 5:
“Three men have been arrested in Germany on suspicion of planning a ‘massive’ terrorist attack on US facilities in the country, officials have said. Federal prosecutor Monika Harms said the three had trained at camps in Pakistan and procured some 700kg (1,500lbs) of chemicals for explosives. She said the accused had sought to target facilities visited by Americans, such as nightclubs, pubs or airports. Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung said the men had posed ‘an imminent threat’…
“The suspects, aged 22, 28 and 29, were alleged to be members of the German cell of a group she named as Islamic Jihad Union. Two of the men were German nationals who had converted to Islam, while the third was a Turkish man. Ms Harms said the al-Qaeda-linked group had set up the cell last year… Joerg Ziercke, the head of Germany’s federal crime office, said the men had a ‘profound hatred of US citizens’. They had been under surveillance for six months, but the authorities decided to act when it became clear the men were planning to move their huge stores of hydrogen peroxide…
“Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble called the men ‘very dangerous terrorists’. ‘They obviously planned these attacks on the orders of an international network,’ he said. Mr Schaeuble said one man was linked to a mosque in the southern city of Neu-Ulm that authorities had suspected for years was an extremist base.
“… there have been growing concerns that Islamist militants are operating in the country. Six years ago, the northern city of Hamburg was thrust into the spotlight after it emerged a cell had used it as a base for planning the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. Last summer, two identical suitcase bombs were planted on two commuter trains in the German cities of Dortmund and Koblenz but they failed to explode.”
Der Spiegel Online added on September 5:
“It would have been an inferno. The explosive material the men had would have sufficed to make bombs with a higher explosive power that those used in the attacks in Madrid and London… It is still not clear which targets the group actually wanted to attack in Germany. In wiretapped conversations, the men spoke again and again about possible targets. Frankfurt airport and other airports were discussed, as was the US airbase at Ramstein and other possible locations such as a nightclub.”
